Unite and the BA debacle
Shiraz spoke today to a leading Unite activist. What follows are the salient points from our discussion:
“The first thing to say is that the tactic of an all-out strike over Christmas was absolutely correct: BA’s response is proof of how effective it was. Some people (including Derek Simpson) seem to be saying, ‘it’s OK to go on strike so long as you don’t inconvenience people too much.’ Sorry, Derek, but that’s not how strikes work: public support is nice, but it’s the economic effect that makes the difference.
“Would the strike have bankrupted BA? Frankly, so what? There are worse things than closing a company down – like allowing your members to be worked into ill-health, stressed-out, subjected to pay cuts and left without pay for months before having to go to the DTI for their redundancy pay - all of which has happened in other air transport companies. In fact, Walsh’s plan for BA would have led the company into exactly the model that has done for Fly-globespan. But we need to remember, as trade unionists, that bankrupting a company is not always the worst option.
“Was the ballot incompetently organised? Firstly, I’d like to say that a lot of elementary activities, including ballots, are incredibly incompetently organised within Unite. We don’t have up to date membership records and information is not shared, supposedly because of the Data Protection Act; that’s a particular problem from the old Amicus section. If this debacle and the complaints of Bassa, brings this incompetence to the top of the agenda, then that’s all to the good. Ironically, though, the BA ballot was – by Unite’s usual standards – very well run. The basic problem is that in an industry where most members pay their dues by check-off you’re at the mercy of the employer in terms of information about who should and shouldn’t be balloted. And in a situation where some members have taken voluntary redundancy and put their notice in, the question arises: when will their notice take effect? If you exclude everyone who’s put their notice in, but they’re still working at the time of the strike, then they could apply for an injunction on the basis that they’d been unfairly excluded from the ballot. The anti-union laws make life almost impossible even for a well-organised union. The sooner we get everyone onto direct debit the better. But of course, the only real answer is to get rid of these laws.
“Derek Simpson describing the strike tactics as ‘over the top’: he may well have been trying to undermine Lenny (McCluskey: the Unite senior official in charge of the dispute, who is also a declared candidate in next year’s general secretary election), but I’m not particularly interested in speculating about his motives. The important point is the effect that his comments had. They were quoted by BA’s lawyer during the court case and would undoubtably have been used by the media if the strike had gone ahead. As far as I’m concerned, if Simpson spoke in all innocence, then he’s not fit to be a General Secretary; if he said what he said as part of his campaign against McCluskey…then he’s not fit to be a General Secretary.
“Talk of going ahead with unofficial/illegal action is not realistic, and I notice that the people clamouring for it are from outside Unite and usually not even active rank-and-file trade unionists. McCluskey and his associates in the Unite leadership are not above criticism, but the snide attacks from Simpson’s people and also from Hicks and his supporters like that idiot Beaumont are not serious and should be treated with contempt. What we’ve got to concentrate on now is minimising the damage that’s been done within Bassa and ensuring that we win the re-ballot.”
Copenhagen and Christmas; Carnival of Socialism #45 « Though Cowards Flinch said,
December 19, 2009 at 9:24 am
[...] I think I agree with Champagne Charlie at Shiraz Socialist that the BA workers are in much too precarious a position, both legally and as regards public [...]
Trade Union Rep said,
December 24, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Prompted by “Cabernet” for a comment, I shall make some, but where do you start? Firstly, I also spoke to a leading Unite activist and her salient points were “it’s a complete ball’s up mate! Happy Christmas…”
Moving on, all activists are leaders…that’s why they are activists. It is for the members to decide what action they wish to take for they are the Union, so I cannot comment on their position of an “all out strike.” However, those acting on behalf of members should also give guidance, even if members have to take the final decision.
You have stated an AGS was leading this dispute i.e. “McCluskey: the Unite senior official in charge of the dispute” so what guidance was given and further more, why do we have National officers allocated to sectors, to only carry bags?
BA’s response was atypical, nothing new, threatened with a dispute they took legal advice, wake up, smell the coffee, and by the way, the toast is burning.
Balancing public support and industrial action is always difficult and sometimes the action has to be measured to make sure members do not lose too much whilst remaining effective. DS’s comment may have been accurate, but I accept the point that others may have seen it as unhelpful.
“There are worse things than closing a company down… bankrupting a company is not always the worst option.” Yes, try organising SME’s on Greenfield sites, and I would have thought that a majority of members just want a settlement, not a closure. But once again, I take the point, nobody should have to be in danger, harassed or bullied at work.
“Elementary activities” with out being too offensive, where was this Unite activist educated…? At Eton where others, teach others, to rule others…”that’s elementary dear Watson…”
I can’t comment on how many incompetent ballots have been run within Unite, as I do not know the numbers, but your activist appears to know. The questions to ask are, how many ballots did we run in 2009 and how many suffered a successful legal challenge? How common is it to lose one on a technicality? If it is rarer than I think, and I apologise in advance if I am wrong, then LM will surely be tainted with this issue, which in many ways is unhelpful to the trade union movement as any attack on any officer can be used to attack the trade union movement as a whole.
The DPA is real, and it applies to all organisations that keep and store information, it is not unique to Unite or as the activist sees it, the ex Amicus section. It should also apply to the rest of Unite and I hope that the activist is not suggesting that it doesn’t as we all don’t need another legal challenge. Not even officers can easily get hold of information, and as frustrating as this is, in many ways this is right and nothing will change that until we get the election out of the way and have “one head”
We don’t need negative publicity and mistakes to bring issues to the top of the agenda, we get enough from the right wing media as it is, we just need good management, advice and failsafe procedures, senior officer’s and the EC can work together on this.
I agree, to organise a ballot for 12, 000 members, geographically spread across many workplaces is a great achievement and the team should be applauded. However, when the employer refused to supply us with information we should have taken legal advice rather than jump to a popular decision, if we did take advice, and that was not helpful, I also apologise in advance.
I agree that the “anti-union laws make life almost impossible even for a well-organised union” but we will have to be a “Learning Organisation” and learn from this.
I don’t think DS was trying to undermine LM, he is just saying what a lot of people think, but I may be wrong, but I think it is a good point that the activist has made; his statement could have been used if the strike had gone ahead, but did DS know at that stage that it could not?
I have been no lover of DS in the past but I have “warmed” to him. I didn’t like him because he invited a number of trots into the organisation some years ago and I have always thought that if you ask someone to get in to bed with you, you should not be surprised if a bout of heavy petting turns into a right good f***ing! However, he did make Amicus a campaigning union and I take my hat off to him for that.
Every GS has issues, I have never known one not to, that’s why any potential candidate who is associated with the outgoing GS finds it difficult to get elected…
Comments like “Talk of going ahead with unofficial/illegal action is not realistic, by not even active rank-and-file trade unionists” is a good point. Unite needs another legal challenge like a hole in condom. But why do you want to give publicity to these others?
A question for you: What is an “average skilled mans wage anyway?” Answer: “an average skilled “persons” wage (as we do have women who are skilled) is a good starting point if you are unemployed”. Further more, why not a semi skilled wage? I will not say unskilled, as every task our members do can be done skilfully!
To all at “Shiraz” sorry for may opening comment, Happy Christmas, good health, and keep the positive debate going, it keeps me thinking…!
Jim Denham said,
December 26, 2009 at 5:29 pm
You may find this of interest:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/20/unite-ba-strike-bassa
Jim Denham said,
December 26, 2009 at 8:02 pm
‘Rep’: Thank you for your detailed contribution. However your central point:
“The questions to ask are, how many ballots did we run in 2009 and how many suffered a successful legal challenge? How common is it to lose one on a technicality?”
…is unconvincing: the truth is that virtually *any* strike ballot can be successfully challenged by the bosses: the only issue is whether the ruling class want to do so at any given juncture.
Your analysis seems to leave out of the equation just how tricky the anti union laws are. Also you seem to be excusing the role of Simpson. Thiose of us campaigning for the left candidate McClusky in the forthcoming GS election don’t seek a showdown with Simpson (and his candidate Bayliss), but I think it’s coming… and we must prepare for it
Jim Denham said,
January 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm
I have taken the liberty of copying the following comment from the United Left email list, from Martin Mayer:
It may be tempting to blame your Union when strikes are ruled “illegal” by a judge, as in the case of First London re their proposed strike for 6th January (today).
But hang on. What if the law is outrageous, and the Government, the employers and the courts are all stacked aginst workers going on strike? Please stop and look at what is really going on in this country before taking a knock against your “incompetent” Union.
No other country in Europe has such punitive anti-union laws. Anywhere else a postal ballot showing 80% or 90% in favour of strike action would never be stopped by the courts. Here in the UK the strike is still deemed to be illegal unless every complicated rule about the balloting procedure is followed to the letter. So you can have a 90% postal ballot for strike action, but if you do not give a sufficiently rigorous explanation as to how you have arrived at the total number direct debit payers, the strike would be illegal – even if the Union declared the accurate number of direct debit payers and they form only 5% of the workforce. That’s just one example which came out of the Metrobus v UNITE Coirt of Appeal hearing in July 2009. And if the strike goes ahead the Court can award damages against the Union of everything the employer has lost on that day.
The Labour Government has not only refused to repeal the Tories’ anti-union laws, it has made them worse by a couple of very serious amendments to the legislation (which were used by the Court of Appeal in the Metrobus case). Following Labour’s victory in 1997, the Unions lobbied the Government to change at least one aspect of the legisaltion which required Unions to give an accurate list of names of those to be balloted for strike action. The Government’s amendments did that by allowing Unions to declare their “check-off” membership by employee category and location, and separately their Direct Debit membership with an explanation of how that figure was arrived at. However more significantly, the Labour Government’s amendments changed the whole emphasis of the legislation away from the Tories’ original intention, which was to protect union members from their own union by ensuring strike ballots were independent and democratic. New Labour’s amendments made the whole rigorous balloting requirements and disclosure of information a protection for employers, so that they could adequately prepare for any strike action. This means employers can claim that any deficiency in the balloting process affects their ability to prepare for a strike – in other words a bosses’ injunction charter.
Unlike in any other legislation in the UK, injunctions can be used to stop strikes almost at the whim of a judge. An injunction hearing is not a proper court hearing. All the employer has to do is present a possible case of a breach of the balloting process enough to satisfy the judge that the employer would have a chance of success in a court hearing. In the case of First London, Firstgroup has actually tried to use a number of legal reasons to stop the strike, most of which have failed because they were totally invalid. The one which succeeded was as follows:
UNITE balloted its members for strike action and action short of a strike (which is normal in UNITE ballots) and got a majority to both questions. UNITE called an action short of a strike within the first 28 days, and then discontinuous strike action in the second month. The argument centres around whether the mandate was activated within 28 days, or otherwise became invalid if the first strike action took place after 28 days. The employer argues that the two questions on the ballot paper constitute two different ballots, and the one for strike action was not activiated within 28 days, therefore the strike action for 6th January is illegal. The judge accpeted there was legal argument here and issued the injunction as the employer requested. UNITE and other unions dispute that it is two separate ballots; it is one balllot with two different questions, allowing the Union some flexibility in the type of action it takes. In this case it used the mandate to start action within 28 days with an action short of a strike, and step up the action in the second month when that failed. UNITE has never had any legal advice to say that is not valid, and nor has any other union.
In the recent BA case, the judge granted an injunction on very alarming grounds indeed. BA argued the strike should be ruled invalid because 800 or 900 members were balloted for strike action, who then were made redundant prior to any strike action being carried out. The judge accepted the employer’s argument and issued an injunction, even though this would have made no difference to the 90%+ strike mandate affecting over 12,000 members. But the legislation is actually very clear. The Union must ballot all its members in the bargaining unit affected by the dispute. It cannot exlcude members who may not be there after the ballot papers are issued. Indeed that would be grounds for an injunction too!! Furthermore UNITE correctly informed the employer of the members it was intending to ballot with a notice issued 7 days prior to ballot. The employer did not raise any objections at the time, yet would have known that some employees would be made redundant. But the law also requires a further notice to be provided by the Union after the strike ballot has been completed and giving 7 days notice of any strike action. This letter must declare an updated list of members who will actually be affected by the strike action. In other words the legislation accepts that there may be a difference between the numbers of workers balloted and those taking strike action, because of joiners and leavers. This appears not to matter to the judge in the BA case, even thought the Union complied fully with the letter of the law.
Now there is a further political element going on here. We are in the grip of an employers’ offensive, eager to roll back workers pay and conditions in order to extract maximum profit in this economic crisis. Major employers are using specialist anti-union lawyers to pore over the legislation to try to find any possible breach of the legislation to stop strikes taking place. These employers want to break unions and hope that members will simply give up in furstration. They also hope union activists will turn on their own unions and cause internal strike and division. The Tories are waiting in the wings to take power in the Spring with a raft of new anti-union proposals and the employers are super-confident that they will get their way. Testing the courts now paves the way for further legislation to “clarify” the law later in favour of the string of injunctions we have seen throughout 2009. And probably some attempt to make public service strikes even more restricted. And New Labour’s repsonse? Total silence on the issue because they still calculate they can only win the election by winning over Daily Mail voters; improving trade union rights is not seen by Brown and Mandelson as an election winner.
This is political and it’s serious. Trade union rights have never been more under threat in this country. For god’s sake, don’t fall into the trap of knocking your Union for “ballsing up” strike ballots. Now is the time for us to defend our Unions and fight for the right to peacefully withdraw our labour. This is a fundamental right in any democratic country and it is under attack.
Martin Mayer
Chair
United Left
Jack Haslam said,
January 10, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Jim,
The analysis of this dispute on here is a welcome breath of fresh air.
It is certainly a lot more informed and intelligent than you will find in the publications, or on the websites of the main left organisations. Which brings me to the point of this post: while looking for information on the dispute I found this particularly odd piece from the Socialist which I would like to share with you:
‘Following the court decision the Socialist Party said in a statement on its website that Unite should defy the law and go ahead with the action, as who can say that other ‘irregularities’ would not be found in the new ballot? Unite could have called on all its BA members to strike for a least a day in a massive demo at Heathrow against the bosses’ law. If the courts then came for the union’s funds then the whole of the trade union movement would have needed to mobilise in defence of democratic rights and the trade unions.’
This proposed line of action had no chance of getting any echo amongst the workers as it ignores all the significant elements in the situation:
1) the fact that it was absolutely certain that the courts would seize UNITE’s funds and bankrupt the union if the action had gone ahead.
2) Only widespread solidarity strike action of near general strike proportions (at least on the scale of the mobilisations that freed the Pentonville Five) would have any prospect of getting the courts to cave in.
3) The BA dispute is an entirely defensive struggle taking place against the backdrop of a global slump and great fear of unemployment within the working class.
4) The BA workers are seriously isolated and have been vilified in a hostile media witch hunt.
5) Strikes and industrial action are still at a very low level expressing the decades long retreat of the trade union movement in the period since the end of the ’84 – 85 miners strike.
6) The idea of having a show down on this issue never even entered the consciousness of the existing leadership of the trade union movement and decisively of 99.999% of the stewards and workplace representatives that would have to deliver such a wave of solidarity strike action.
The adventurous approach proposed for the BA cabin crew is an extreme example of what can happens when a far left group thinks it has to come up with a line on an industrial disputes despite lacking any significant contacts with the workers involved. It bears little similarity to the rather cautious one adopted in PCS for example where the Socialist Party does have significant support and has to actually take responsibility for leading actions. In fact, in PCS the SP tends to be over-cautious and paint defeats as victories.
The only thing worse than this kind of mindless playing with slogans is the failure to recognize and support genuine working class struggles because they appear in a form that the left doesn’t like. This was seen with the construction engineering strikes last year when various organisations failed to positively support the action – or even denounced it. The Socialist Party was a mile ahead of the rest of the left on this one – due to the fact it has experienced militants in the industry.
This leads me to the wider point of this piece. The revolutionary left is now so disconnected from the class it would aspire to lead – and so focussed on projecting a militant ‘posture’ to its main target audience amongst students, that it now oscillates between a residual commitment to working class socialism and ‘revolutionary’ middle class radicalism.
A commitment to genuine working class socialism requires that you face reality squarely, that you know that the course is not a straight one and that defeats, retreats and compromises with the class enemy are inevitable. This is something that it is really hard to get over to young people who’ve never been lucky enough to witness big workers struggles on any scale – and its much harder to get over to young middle class people than it is to young workers. But it has to be done.
‘